Vengeful Pharaoh Mechanics question

[mongoosa]

Vengeful Pharaoh is in a player's graveyard.
The other player attacks, no blockers, damage is assigned.
The Vengeful Pharaoh's ability triggers and in response the attacking player removes it from the graveyard.
Does the Pharaoh destroy the attacking creature?
Does the Pharaoh return to the player's library?

[AeroSigma]

Once an ability has triggered, it doesn't matter what happens to the source (unless the ability specifically says otherwise.)  So you will get to destroy an attacking creature, and return to library will trigger, but only resolve if the Vengeful Pharaoh is still in the GY.

Now of course, if your opponent remembered it was there, they would exile the pharaoh during the declare blockers step after you declared no blockers, so that they could save an attacking creature.  But after the ability triggers, moving the pharaoh won't cancel it.

[mongoosa]

That was my thought, as well.  Thank you for the confirmation.

[Drunk Cynic]

Once an ability has triggered, it doesn't matter what happens to the source (unless the ability specifically says otherwise.)  So you will get to destroy an attacking creature, and return to library will trigger, but only resolve if the Vengeful Pharaoh is still in the GY.

Now of course, if your opponent remembered it was there, they would exile the pharaoh during the declare blockers step after you declared no blockers, so that they could save an attacking creature.  But after the ability triggers, moving the pharaoh won't cancel it.

Sorry, you are incorrect. From the rulings for Vengeful Pharaoh, it must be in the graveyard when the ability resolves in order for it to do anything.

From the ruling, if they remove it after the ability is on the stack, but before it resolves (i.e. Scavenging Ooze, Beckon Apparition), the effect will fizzle.

Further, if the creature is an illegal target, the ability would fizzle as well.

[AeroSigma]

Ha! you're right, Vengeful Pharaoh is one of those cards that "specifically states otherwise" as I mentioned above.  I should have read it more closely.